Should the definition of a mineral be updated?
Dear all,
The definition of what a mineral is, has been around for a while and has
been widely accepted by all.
However, I feel that definition is no longer "covering the charge", so to
speak.
Many new minerals are being described and accepted by the IMA, yet they do
not fully comply with all criteria of "a mineral". Hazenite comes to mind
(sorry, Bob). That mineral would never have made it say 40 years ago
(because of its biogenic origin). Minerals formed on a burning coal mine
dump are considered anthropogenic, but if an untouched coal deposit starts
burning because of natural causes, then the minerals produced are fully
acceptable. Isn't that a very thin line? Is it a necessity to have that
line?
Same thing for all those minerals found on the walls of old uranium mines
...
I'm not saying all those should not be minerals! I'm just saying that our
science has evolved, and consequently, our definitions should too. Mineral
evolution was unheard of when they coined the definition of a mineral.
Nobody really thought about the fact there would not be as many minerals if
it was not for the great oxidation event (in other words, if it was not for
biological life on our planet). Now that it is obvious, should not the
definition of a mineral be updated?
Cheers, Herwig
Recreational mineralogist, Belgium
As a mineralogist I get weary of these debates. A mineral is formed by geological processes. That is not to say that biological compounds are not of interest, but they are a separate category, as are anthropogenic materials.
Don
On 07/23/2021 9:06 PM Herwig Pelckmans via MSA-talk <msa-talk@minlists.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The definition of what a mineral is, has been around for a while and has been widely accepted by all.
However, I feel that definition is no longer "covering the charge", so to speak.
Many new minerals are being described and accepted by the IMA, yet they do not fully comply with all criteria of "a mineral". Hazenite comes to mind (sorry, Bob). That mineral would never have made it say 40 years ago (because of its biogenic origin). Minerals formed on a burning coal mine dump are considered anthropogenic, but if an untouched coal deposit starts burning because of natural causes, then the minerals produced are fully acceptable. Isn't that a very thin line? Is it a necessity to have that line?
Same thing for all those minerals found on the walls of old uranium mines ...
I'm not saying all those should not be minerals! I'm just saying that our science has evolved, and consequently, our definitions should too. Mineral evolution was unheard of when they coined the definition of a mineral. Nobody really thought about the fact there would not be as many minerals if it was not for the great oxidation event (in other words, if it was not for biological life on our planet). Now that it is obvious, should not the definition of a mineral be updated?
Cheers, Herwig
Recreational mineralogist, Belgium
_______________________________________________
MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.org
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 4:51 AM Herwig Pelckmans via MSA-talk
msa-talk@minlists.org wrote:
Dear all,
The definition of what a mineral is, has been around for a while and has been widely accepted by all.
However, I feel that definition is no longer "covering the charge", so to speak.
Chemists are also updating their nomenclature rules so perhaps.
I am not willing to say that we should without a draft update and discussion.
In this modern database friendly world it is possible to add an
annotation field to
qualify the entry and embrace, mine and mine tailings anomalies,
smelter, smelter slag, organics and more.
Never found in nature endpoints haunt the field as well but are necessary.
We have moved a long way from the days when Ralph W. G. Wyckoff and
his wife assembled crystal structures into a book page by page mineral
by mineral back in the late 60's when I worked in his lab at the Univ
of Arizona on other things. What was then, near impossible is almost
easy now.
With a plan new mineral submissions could have this new question
answered and a relentless update to history begun.
Do give Dana's volumes a presence.
I do hope someone at the UofA gets the original RWGW camera ready
pages digitized if they are on a shelf someplace.
--
T o m M i t c h e l l ( o n NiftyEgg[.]com )
Dear Herwig,
there is a different definition of a mineral, stating that constituents
of anthropogenic residues and synthetic materials are also considered as
minerals. Please take a look at this book:
A. Szymański
Technical Mineralogy and Petrography: an Introduction to Materials
Technology
Elsevier, New York (1989)
Regards,
Bartosz
W dniu 2021-07-24 05:06, Herwig Pelckmans via MSA-talk napisał(a):
Dear all,
The definition of what a mineral is, has been around for a while and
has been widely accepted by all.
However, I feel that definition is no longer "covering the charge", so
to speak.
Many new minerals are being described and accepted by the IMA, yet
they do not fully comply with all criteria of "a mineral". Hazenite
comes to mind (sorry, Bob). That mineral would never have made it say
40 years ago (because of its biogenic origin). Minerals formed on a
burning coal mine dump are considered anthropogenic, but if an
untouched coal deposit starts burning because of natural causes, then
the minerals produced are fully acceptable. Isn't that a very thin
line? Is it a necessity to have that line?
Same thing for all those minerals found on the walls of old uranium
mines ...
I'm not saying all those should not be minerals! I'm just saying that
our science has evolved, and consequently, our definitions should too.
Mineral evolution was unheard of when they coined the definition of a
mineral. Nobody really thought about the fact there would not be as
many minerals if it was not for the great oxidation event (in other
words, if it was not for biological life on our planet). Now that it
is obvious, should not the definition of a mineral be updated?
Cheers, Herwig
Recreational mineralogist, Belgium
MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.org
--
Bartosz Mikoda MSc
AGH University of Science and Technology
Faculty of Geology, Geophysics and Environmental Protection
Department of Environmental Protection
Mickiewicza Ave. 30, 30-059 Cracow
phone: (+48) 12 617 31 79
e-mail: bartosz.mikoda@agh.edu.pl
Hi Herwig
It seems like this sort of discussion perks up every few years, and I think
that is a good thing. My own prejudice is that we define a mineral by
something that is
naturally produced (by any means in nature) and can be consistently
characterized. So biologically produced materials are minerals, and so are
materials
produced from original anthropogenic operations. The characterization part
means that even nano-scale materials can be minerals, even if they are
never found as finite crystals.
It is only necessary that they have consistent composition and
characteristics that we can measure. This would probably mean that many,
perhaps thousands, of species
are sitting around undiscovered until we use modern technology to examine
them, e.g. electron microscopes and electron diffraction. This would
include all sorts of complex metal salts with different degrees of
hydration, alloy minerals, and so on. Amorphous materials, if they are
consistent in most ways, would
also qualify. I will enjoy hearing the response to these notions.
Glenn Waychunas
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 4:50 AM Herwig Pelckmans via MSA-talk <
msa-talk@minlists.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The definition of what a mineral is, has been around for a while and has
been widely accepted by all.
However, I feel that definition is no longer "covering the charge", so to
speak.
Many new minerals are being described and accepted by the IMA, yet they do
not fully comply with all criteria of "a mineral". Hazenite comes to mind
(sorry, Bob). That mineral would never have made it say 40 years ago
(because of its biogenic origin). Minerals formed on a burning coal mine
dump are considered anthropogenic, but if an untouched coal deposit starts
burning because of natural causes, then the minerals produced are fully
acceptable. Isn't that a very thin line? Is it a necessity to have that
line?
Same thing for all those minerals found on the walls of old uranium mines
...
I'm not saying all those should not be minerals! I'm just saying that our
science has evolved, and consequently, our definitions should too. Mineral
evolution was unheard of when they coined the definition of a mineral.
Nobody really thought about the fact there would not be as many minerals if
it was not for the great oxidation event (in other words, if it was not for
biological life on our planet). Now that it is obvious, should not the
definition of a mineral be updated?
Cheers, Herwig
Recreational mineralogist, Belgium
MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.org
--
Glenn Waychunas
Scientific Affiliate/Retired Senior Scientist
Energy Geosciences Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory MS 74-316C
One Cyclotron Road Berkeley CA 94720
Visiting Associate
Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences
California Institute of Technology MC 170-25
1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena CA 91125
GAWaychunas@lbl.gov
Cell 650-400-3595
It can be argued: Since Homo sapiens sapiens is a part of Nature, any phase produced by Homo sapiens sapiens is natural and hence a mineral. so even a phase cooked up in a Lab, is cooked up in Nature by a creation of nature and is therfore a mineral.
As far as amorphous materials, … they differ from true liquids only in a kinetic sense but share the non periodic structure at scales beyond 5 or ten angstroms more or less…..so if amorphous materials are included then perhaps liquids should also… after all Hg native is liquid and considered a mineral.
At one level its all a bit semantic and one can go round and round. Not unlike trying to define LIFE. there are many definitions to what constitutes life… but to any reasonable definition there is always an exception that a clever person can find. Then the list with exceptopns becomes exhausting and not useful. Freeman Dyson wrote about this in the 1980’s.
there in a sort of Kurt Godel Incompleteness theorem operating… Godel showed that there are things in Number theory (arithmetic!) that are true but cannot be proven! the ultimate Platonicist concept…
Professor Emeritus Frank J. Spera
Dept of Earth Science
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
http://magma.geol.ucsb.edu
http://mcs.geol.ucsb.edu http://mcs.geol.ucsb.edu/
On Jul 26, 2021, at 11:11 AM, Glenn Waychunas via MSA-talk msa-talk@minlists.org wrote:
Hi Herwig
It seems like this sort of discussion perks up every few years, and I think that is a good thing. My own prejudice is that we define a mineral by something that is
naturally produced (by any means in nature) and can be consistently characterized. So biologically produced materials are minerals, and so are materials
produced from original anthropogenic operations. The characterization part means that even nano-scale materials can be minerals, even if they are never found as finite crystals.
It is only necessary that they have consistent composition and characteristics that we can measure. This would probably mean that many, perhaps thousands, of species
are sitting around undiscovered until we use modern technology to examine them, e.g. electron microscopes and electron diffraction. This would
include all sorts of complex metal salts with different degrees of hydration, alloy minerals, and so on. Amorphous materials, if they are consistent in most ways, would
also qualify. I will enjoy hearing the response to these notions.
Glenn Waychunas
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 4:50 AM Herwig Pelckmans via MSA-talk <msa-talk@minlists.org mailto:msa-talk@minlists.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The definition of what a mineral is, has been around for a while and has been widely accepted by all.
However, I feel that definition is no longer "covering the charge", so to speak.
Many new minerals are being described and accepted by the IMA, yet they do not fully comply with all criteria of "a mineral". Hazenite comes to mind (sorry, Bob). That mineral would never have made it say 40 years ago (because of its biogenic origin). Minerals formed on a burning coal mine dump are considered anthropogenic, but if an untouched coal deposit starts burning because of natural causes, then the minerals produced are fully acceptable. Isn't that a very thin line? Is it a necessity to have that line?
Same thing for all those minerals found on the walls of old uranium mines ...
I'm not saying all those should not be minerals! I'm just saying that our science has evolved, and consequently, our definitions should too. Mineral evolution was unheard of when they coined the definition of a mineral. Nobody really thought about the fact there would not be as many minerals if it was not for the great oxidation event (in other words, if it was not for biological life on our planet). Now that it is obvious, should not the definition of a mineral be updated?
Cheers, Herwig
Recreational mineralogist, Belgium
MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.org mailto:msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.org mailto:msa-talk-leave@minlists.org
--
Glenn Waychunas
Scientific Affiliate/Retired Senior Scientist
Energy Geosciences Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory MS 74-316C
One Cyclotron Road Berkeley CA 94720
Visiting Associate
Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences
California Institute of Technology MC 170-25
1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena CA 91125
GAWaychunas@lbl.gov mailto:GAWaychunas@lbl.gov
Cell 650-400-3595
MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.org
Dear Glen,
I agree with all of all of what you say below with one exception. In undergrad school, in the late 60s, I was taught that a mineral is a naturally occurring material with a definite crystal structure, thus excluding amorphous substances. I’m ok with now including biogenic crystalline phases as minerals, but not with amorphous ones— where do we draw the line?
John Slack
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 26, 2021, at 2:33 PM, Glenn Waychunas via MSA-talk msa-talk@minlists.org wrote:
Hi Herwig
It seems like this sort of discussion perks up every few years, and I think that is a good thing. My own prejudice is that we define a mineral by something that is
naturally produced (by any means in nature) and can be consistently characterized. So biologically produced materials are minerals, and so are materials
produced from original anthropogenic operations. The characterization part means that even nano-scale materials can be minerals, even if they are never found as finite crystals.
It is only necessary that they have consistent composition and characteristics that we can measure. This would probably mean that many, perhaps thousands, of species
are sitting around undiscovered until we use modern technology to examine them, e.g. electron microscopes and electron diffraction. This would
include all sorts of complex metal salts with different degrees of hydration, alloy minerals, and so on. Amorphous materials, if they are consistent in most ways, would
also qualify. I will enjoy hearing the response to these notions.
Glenn Waychunas
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 4:50 AM Herwig Pelckmans via MSA-talk msa-talk@minlists.org wrote:
Dear all,
The definition of what a mineral is, has been around for a while and has been widely accepted by all.
However, I feel that definition is no longer "covering the charge", so to speak.
Many new minerals are being described and accepted by the IMA, yet they do not fully comply with all criteria of "a mineral". Hazenite comes to mind (sorry, Bob). That mineral would never have made it say 40 years ago (because of its biogenic origin). Minerals formed on a burning coal mine dump are considered anthropogenic, but if an untouched coal deposit starts burning because of natural causes, then the minerals produced are fully acceptable. Isn't that a very thin line? Is it a necessity to have that line?
Same thing for all those minerals found on the walls of old uranium mines ...
I'm not saying all those should not be minerals! I'm just saying that our science has evolved, and consequently, our definitions should too. Mineral evolution was unheard of when they coined the definition of a mineral. Nobody really thought about the fact there would not be as many minerals if it was not for the great oxidation event (in other words, if it was not for biological life on our planet). Now that it is obvious, should not the definition of a mineral be updated?
Cheers, Herwig
Recreational mineralogist, Belgium
MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.org
--
Glenn Waychunas
Scientific Affiliate/Retired Senior Scientist
Energy Geosciences Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory MS 74-316C
One Cyclotron Road Berkeley CA 94720
Visiting Associate
Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences
California Institute of Technology MC 170-25
1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena CA 91125
GAWaychunas@lbl.gov
Cell 650-400-3595
MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.org
Hi John
I'll deliberately confound this by mentioning quasicrystals. They do not
have a regular structure in the normal sense, yet they must be minerals (if
some are natural). A stretched analogy
is that vitreous silica has a ring structure and is not completely random,
i.e. it has a well-defined radial distribution function and considerably
short range order. I suspect liquids can be minerals, subject to limits on
compositions.
Glenn
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 3:16 PM John Slack jfslack7@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Glen,
I agree with all of all of what you say below with one exception. In
undergrad school, in the late 60s, I was taught that a mineral is a
naturally occurring material with a definite crystal structure, thus
excluding amorphous substances. I’m ok with now including biogenic
crystalline phases as minerals, but not with amorphous ones— where do we
draw the line?
John Slack
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 26, 2021, at 2:33 PM, Glenn Waychunas via MSA-talk <
msa-talk@minlists.org> wrote:
Hi Herwig
It seems like this sort of discussion perks up every few years, and I
think that is a good thing. My own prejudice is that we define a mineral
by something that is
naturally produced (by any means in nature) and can be consistently
characterized. So biologically produced materials are minerals, and so are
materials
produced from original anthropogenic operations. The characterization
part means that even nano-scale materials can be minerals, even if they are
never found as finite crystals.
It is only necessary that they have consistent composition and
characteristics that we can measure. This would probably mean that many,
perhaps thousands, of species
are sitting around undiscovered until we use modern technology to examine
them, e.g. electron microscopes and electron diffraction. This would
include all sorts of complex metal salts with different degrees of
hydration, alloy minerals, and so on. Amorphous materials, if they are
consistent in most ways, would
also qualify. I will enjoy hearing the response to these notions.
Glenn Waychunas
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 4:50 AM Herwig Pelckmans via MSA-talk <
msa-talk@minlists.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The definition of what a mineral is, has been around for a while and has
been widely accepted by all.
However, I feel that definition is no longer "covering the charge", so to
speak.
Many new minerals are being described and accepted by the IMA, yet they
do not fully comply with all criteria of "a mineral". Hazenite comes to
mind (sorry, Bob). That mineral would never have made it say 40 years ago
(because of its biogenic origin). Minerals formed on a burning coal mine
dump are considered anthropogenic, but if an untouched coal deposit starts
burning because of natural causes, then the minerals produced are fully
acceptable. Isn't that a very thin line? Is it a necessity to have that
line?
Same thing for all those minerals found on the walls of old uranium mines
...
I'm not saying all those should not be minerals! I'm just saying that our
science has evolved, and consequently, our definitions should too. Mineral
evolution was unheard of when they coined the definition of a mineral.
Nobody really thought about the fact there would not be as many minerals if
it was not for the great oxidation event (in other words, if it was not for
biological life on our planet). Now that it is obvious, should not the
definition of a mineral be updated?
Cheers, Herwig
Recreational mineralogist, Belgium
MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.org
--
Glenn Waychunas
Scientific Affiliate/Retired Senior Scientist
Energy Geosciences Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory MS 74-316C
One Cyclotron Road Berkeley CA 94720
Visiting Associate
Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences
California Institute of Technology MC 170-25
1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena CA 91125
GAWaychunas@lbl.gov
Cell 650-400-3595
MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.org
--
Glenn Waychunas
Scientific Affiliate/Retired Senior Scientist
Energy Geosciences Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory MS 74-316C
One Cyclotron Road Berkeley CA 94720
Visiting Associate
Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences
California Institute of Technology MC 170-25
1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena CA 91125
GAWaychunas@lbl.gov
Cell 650-400-3595
Hi Glen,
Thanks much for this information--I was unaware of "quasicrystals." The
Devil is in the details, I guess...
John
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 9:44 PM Glenn Waychunas gawaychunas@lbl.gov wrote:
Hi John
I'll deliberately confound this by mentioning quasicrystals. They do not
have a regular structure in the normal sense, yet they must be minerals (if
some are natural). A stretched analogy
is that vitreous silica has a ring structure and is not completely random,
i.e. it has a well-defined radial distribution function and considerably
short range order. I suspect liquids can be minerals, subject to limits on
compositions.
Glenn
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 3:16 PM John Slack jfslack7@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Glen,
I agree with all of all of what you say below with one exception. In
undergrad school, in the late 60s, I was taught that a mineral is a
naturally occurring material with a definite crystal structure, thus
excluding amorphous substances. I’m ok with now including biogenic
crystalline phases as minerals, but not with amorphous ones— where do we
draw the line?
John Slack
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 26, 2021, at 2:33 PM, Glenn Waychunas via MSA-talk <
msa-talk@minlists.org> wrote:
Hi Herwig
It seems like this sort of discussion perks up every few years, and I
think that is a good thing. My own prejudice is that we define a mineral
by something that is
naturally produced (by any means in nature) and can be consistently
characterized. So biologically produced materials are minerals, and so are
materials
produced from original anthropogenic operations. The characterization
part means that even nano-scale materials can be minerals, even if they are
never found as finite crystals.
It is only necessary that they have consistent composition and
characteristics that we can measure. This would probably mean that many,
perhaps thousands, of species
are sitting around undiscovered until we use modern technology to examine
them, e.g. electron microscopes and electron diffraction. This would
include all sorts of complex metal salts with different degrees of
hydration, alloy minerals, and so on. Amorphous materials, if they are
consistent in most ways, would
also qualify. I will enjoy hearing the response to these notions.
Glenn Waychunas
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 4:50 AM Herwig Pelckmans via MSA-talk <
msa-talk@minlists.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The definition of what a mineral is, has been around for a while and has
been widely accepted by all.
However, I feel that definition is no longer "covering the charge", so
to speak.
Many new minerals are being described and accepted by the IMA, yet they
do not fully comply with all criteria of "a mineral". Hazenite comes to
mind (sorry, Bob). That mineral would never have made it say 40 years ago
(because of its biogenic origin). Minerals formed on a burning coal
mine dump are considered anthropogenic, but if an untouched coal deposit
starts burning because of natural causes, then the minerals produced are
fully acceptable. Isn't that a very thin line? Is it a necessity to have
that line?
Same thing for all those minerals found on the walls of old uranium
mines ...
I'm not saying all those should not be minerals! I'm just saying that
our science has evolved, and consequently, our definitions should too.
Mineral evolution was unheard of when they coined the definition of a
mineral. Nobody really thought about the fact there would not be as many
minerals if it was not for the great oxidation event (in other words, if it
was not for biological life on our planet). Now that it is obvious, should
not the definition of a mineral be updated?
Cheers, Herwig
Recreational mineralogist, Belgium
MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.org
--
Glenn Waychunas
Scientific Affiliate/Retired Senior Scientist
Energy Geosciences Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory MS 74-316C
One Cyclotron Road Berkeley CA 94720
Visiting Associate
Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences
California Institute of Technology MC 170-25
1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena CA 91125
GAWaychunas@lbl.gov
Cell 650-400-3595
MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.org
--
Glenn Waychunas
Scientific Affiliate/Retired Senior Scientist
Energy Geosciences Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory MS 74-316C
One Cyclotron Road Berkeley CA 94720
Visiting Associate
Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences
California Institute of Technology MC 170-25
1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena CA 91125
GAWaychunas@lbl.gov
Cell 650-400-3595
--
John F Slack
138 Court Street
Farmington, ME 04938 USA
E-mail: jfslack7@gmail.com
Cell: 207-860-0442
I've always used "inorganic", not "non-biologic". Organic and biologic mean
two different things when it comes to chemicals. An organic compound is one
based on C-H chains, and inorganic one is not. Therefore a mineral can be
produced by biologic means but still be an inorganic compound.
-Christine
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:51 AM John Slack via MSA-talk <
msa-talk@minlists.org> wrote:
Dear Glen,
I agree with all of all of what you say below with one exception. In
undergrad school, in the late 60s, I was taught that a mineral is a
naturally occurring material with a definite crystal structure, thus
excluding amorphous substances. I’m ok with now including biogenic
crystalline phases as minerals, but not with amorphous ones— where do we
draw the line?
John Slack
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 26, 2021, at 2:33 PM, Glenn Waychunas via MSA-talk <
msa-talk@minlists.org> wrote:
Hi Herwig
It seems like this sort of discussion perks up every few years, and I
think that is a good thing. My own prejudice is that we define a mineral
by something that is
naturally produced (by any means in nature) and can be consistently
characterized. So biologically produced materials are minerals, and so are
materials
produced from original anthropogenic operations. The characterization
part means that even nano-scale materials can be minerals, even if they are
never found as finite crystals.
It is only necessary that they have consistent composition and
characteristics that we can measure. This would probably mean that many,
perhaps thousands, of species
are sitting around undiscovered until we use modern technology to examine
them, e.g. electron microscopes and electron diffraction. This would
include all sorts of complex metal salts with different degrees of
hydration, alloy minerals, and so on. Amorphous materials, if they are
consistent in most ways, would
also qualify. I will enjoy hearing the response to these notions.
Glenn Waychunas
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 4:50 AM Herwig Pelckmans via MSA-talk <
msa-talk@minlists.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The definition of what a mineral is, has been around for a while and has
been widely accepted by all.
However, I feel that definition is no longer "covering the charge", so to
speak.
Many new minerals are being described and accepted by the IMA, yet they
do not fully comply with all criteria of "a mineral". Hazenite comes to
mind (sorry, Bob). That mineral would never have made it say 40 years ago
(because of its biogenic origin). Minerals formed on a burning coal mine
dump are considered anthropogenic, but if an untouched coal deposit starts
burning because of natural causes, then the minerals produced are fully
acceptable. Isn't that a very thin line? Is it a necessity to have that
line?
Same thing for all those minerals found on the walls of old uranium mines
...
I'm not saying all those should not be minerals! I'm just saying that our
science has evolved, and consequently, our definitions should too. Mineral
evolution was unheard of when they coined the definition of a mineral.
Nobody really thought about the fact there would not be as many minerals if
it was not for the great oxidation event (in other words, if it was not for
biological life on our planet). Now that it is obvious, should not the
definition of a mineral be updated?
Cheers, Herwig
Recreational mineralogist, Belgium
MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.org
--
Glenn Waychunas
Scientific Affiliate/Retired Senior Scientist
Energy Geosciences Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory MS 74-316C
One Cyclotron Road Berkeley CA 94720
Visiting Associate
Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences
California Institute of Technology MC 170-25
1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena CA 91125
GAWaychunas@lbl.gov
Cell 650-400-3595
MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.org
MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.org
--
Dr. Christine M. Clark
Dept. of Geography and Geology
Eastern Michigan University
Ypsilanti, MI 48197 USA
Phone: 734-487-8590
Fax: 734-487-6979
christine.clark@emich.edu, cclark7@emich.edu